NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 143 of 2017

1 - Sewa Ram Sinha S/o Shri Nandlal Sinha, Aged About 40 Years Twelth Class, Assistant Electrician Helper , R/o Industrial Area, Near Nilesh Kirana Store, Ward No. 18, Durg, 491001, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Electrical- Mechanical Division Durg, Durg- 491001, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

17.03.2026

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Durg (C.G.) in Case No.12/I.D.Act/Reference/2013 dated 23.02.2017, whereby, the statement of claim presented by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The facts of the present case are that services of the petitioner were discontinued on 05.10.2012 and thereafter, an application was moved before the Labour Commissioner, Raipur and matter was referred to the competent Labour Court according to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act of 1947’). In the statement of claim, the petitioner pleaded that he was appointed under the respondent in the month of February, 2006 to the post of Electric Helper. His services were discontinued on 05.10.2012 without following the procedure contemplated in Sections 25F, 25N and 25 of the Act of 1947. The petitioner pleaded that he worked for 240 days in a calender year but no inquiry was conducted and no retrenchment allowance was paid. The petitioner prayed for reinstatement with full back wages.

4. The respondent filed a written statement and took plea that the petitioner was never engaged by the department in the month of February, 2006. It was further pleaded that no order of appointment was issued. It was also stated that the petitioner never worked for 240 days in a calender year rather his engagement was casual in nature, therefore, there was no need to conduct an inquiry or to follow the provisions of law contemplated under Sections 25F, 25N and 25 of the Act of 1947.

5. Learned Labour Court framed issues. The workman examined his witness and exhibited certain documents and thereafter, learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim vide award dated

23.02.2017.

6. Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calender year and stated this fact on affidavit which was never rebutted. He would further submit that the workman examined himself whereas the department failed to examine any witness. It is also argued that the applications under Right to Information were moved before the respondent authority to provide relevant documents with regard to his engagement but no response was given. It is submitted that the petitioner has placed on record certain documents along with rejoinder to demonstrate that the petitioner worked for 240 days in a calender year. He would contend that the documents have been supplied by the department under Right to Information after disposal of reference case. He would further contend that the burden was upon employer to establish the fact that the workman was never engaged and he did not work for 240 days in a calender year but department failed to discharge burden of proof. He would pray to allow this petition.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose submissions advanced by Mr. Agrawal. He would submit that the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim on the ground that the workman failed to establish the fact that he worked for 240 days in a calender year. He would further submit that the workman could not produce relevant documents to establish this fact. It is further argued that the engagement of workman was casual in nature and n